kwomp2
@kwomp2@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Anon gets plastered 3 days ago:
Please don’t question this merit-dualism. I need it as my moral compass in these ever-expanding, complicated, almost mystical realms of the markets.
- Calvinism or liberalism or smth (I don’t know I’m not a priest)
- Comment on Anon plays spin the bottle 2 weeks ago:
That sounds good and healthy to me. It’s definetly part of any pedagocial role to mitigate the worst. I mean I strongly advocate for hope in the good in kids and teach/allow them to make this world a better place than we managed to so far, responsibility and all kinds of compasses. But surely they are idiots and need to rely on us mitigating that!
- Comment on Anon plays spin the bottle 2 weeks ago:
Yes, happening. Empathy and morals (which are party sort of systemized empathy) do develop. Needs time and good relationship circumstances though. I’m in outdoor pedagogy and I’m pretty sure kids make a lot of progress with some help here and there.
School as both the no 1 pedagogical field and an institution of selection and disciplination (hello competition, hello human market) isn’t a great place to progress in that.
- Comment on Anon plays spin the bottle 2 weeks ago:
Haha yeah sorry I’m sick and kinda slow rn.
Yeah basically that’s what I said but I also tried to describe the rational of being mean and contextualize it in a broader mode of socialization.
This is to not just go “kids are brutal” but add additional understanding, which in turn is meant to help forgiveness (in a sense of reducing hurt) and see the involvement of social order (competition does no good to hoomans).
You know, like the kids are alright but society isn’t yet so they aren’t. This sucks but doesn’t have to forever.
- Comment on Anon plays spin the bottle 2 weeks ago:
If there is even just a chance that others wouldn’t understand, let alone disapprove you associating with kid X, you can accomplish 2 things by ousting them: 1. You get rid of the potential disapproval (wich is mostly just insecurity) 2. You help an ingroup getting rid of unambiguousness, by drawing/strengthening the border to the outgroup, while with the same move placing yourself on the inside.
I work with kids, and so far I think this is the objective rationality behind most or at least many acts of cruel exclusion.
The only long term, non authoritarian solution is the kids developing a moral compass, that makes violent exclusion more important to them than short term insecurity-management and of course beeing less insecure. (Plus the “weird ones” often have fluffin interesting perspectives)
As we can see in comments like “shower more” even many adults didn’t recover from the competitive-acceptance-bs other kids/their parents/ this fucked up society gave them.
- Comment on The mark 2 months ago:
Nah but a fresh tick bite. This means I’m from the future
- Comment on How Do You Explain to a Fully Grown Adult That Constantly Mocking Others' Appearance (Even on TV) is Toxic Behavior? 4 months ago:
Whats going on ITT?
You fluffin find out where that insecurity comes from and help them build themselves up.
Constructive and empathic (self)critique is how transformation works
- Comment on How Do You Explain to a Fully Grown Adult That Constantly Mocking Others' Appearance (Even on TV) is Toxic Behavior? 4 months ago:
This is not how you strenghthen solidarity. In case anyone ever gave you warmth when you were struggling to be a nice person: ponder that situation :)
- Comment on New tech discovered 4 months ago:
Even though this is true for like 90% of my thinking (that I can see when I try), so far I’m concinced this ist because I am a predominantly language-and-normal-grammar-rules thinker.
There are people that mostly think via associations of words that don’t have to be formulated/ cast into grammar.
And then there supposedly people mainly thinking in pictures or smth, without words.
Anyways for some people rubber duck mode reoresents a change in thinking method, I think
- Comment on Put em up 5 months ago:
So trying to destroy it and making sure its accurate and complete turns out to be the same thing
- Comment on What the fuck 5 months ago:
Damn that hell of a good explanation, thank god I can use those holy words in the future with their whole blasphemic potential. Ironically, it will prolly make me sound like a christian…
- Comment on What the fuck 5 months ago:
That makes sense. Your doc wouldn’t try to convince your shit explains the universe tho
- Comment on What the fuck 5 months ago:
I never understood how “hell” and “damn” are considered forbidden words by christian-conservatives. The stem directly from their own vocabulary, they are all about those categories, yet they don’t want to see them in discourse
- Comment on The stats don't lie 5 months ago:
Someone discovered the dialectic of individual and society
- Comment on Elsevier 5 months ago:
Thank you, this justifies to introduce myself as campaign porn producer from now on
- Comment on Elsevier 5 months ago:
(What I’m trying to say is you have my bow)
- Comment on Elsevier 5 months ago:
Succesfully iniating this from the fediverse would be such a massive boost in public visibility and discoursive strength of the project of collectivization of information infrastructure (like lemmy).
Imagine we fluffin freed science from capital and basically all the scientists openly stated how useful this was
- Comment on Fossils 6 months ago:
Okay I dont know much about dino categorization, but let’s say: The category “dinosaur” is a sum of descriptions of objective properties of dinosaurs and their relation to other species’ properties (idk, no milk, thus no mammal…). Those properties and relations existed as the dinosaur existed. So I would agree: to that extend the categories existed, without us.
Let’s say the category “poetry” describes a relational phenomenon that occurs when a combination of words or an arrangement of things (sunset, fossils) sparks an aesthetic experience.
This is not just discovered and described by humans, but it can exclusively happen when humans are present. As with dinos: the category “poetry” didn’ exist before us. The difference I’m all about: What the category describes also did’t exist before humans. Yes, there were fossils, but they alone would have never evolved to be a part of poetry without humans, the way dinos were dinos without humans.
- Comment on Community 6 months ago:
You also rock.
- Comment on Community 6 months ago:
You rock.
- Comment on Fossils 6 months ago:
To the haters: I dont question your experience of (this) poetry. That I would be sorry for.
I questions the hypostasis, that is declaring your experience of the thing as a property of the thing.
- Comment on Fossils 6 months ago:
No. By my logic human existence is the point in wich poetry exists.
Yes, we almost agree, I just argue: Poetry is not what sparks. It’s the spark.
Sunrise exists: no poetry. Sunrise sparks someones mind: poetry.
- Comment on Community 6 months ago:
Did anyone look this up?
- Comment on Fossils 6 months ago:
Yeah nice, but also no not quite… Before humans and before words there was no poetry. Just stones and bugs and stuff. It needed humans cognitive capacity to emerge/create (not discover) aesthetic categories, like poetry
Sorry for fact checking your poetic meme, but it made this claim that might be understood factual and unreflected mystification of nature is still quite a thing
- Comment on ripperonis 8 months ago:
Wasn’t sure if you were joking. But after 3 minutes of research I see you weren’t. Thanks for that info. … turns out they don’t euphemize their euthanize.
I’ll see myself out
- Comment on Social media 8 months ago:
Random wrong place I know, but dont wanna bother more people then necessary: Why cant i see upvotes/downvotes?